All Things In The Field Uneven?

Max Power · 11-03-2002, 09:59 PM

I watched a couple of innings of Games 6 and 7 of the 1971 W.S. on ESPN Classic today.

Baseball sure has changed in 30 years - - uniform styles, player conditioning, fan attire and reactions, pitching patterns, umpiring, etc.

But, one thing that really stood up was the condition of the field. The turf in Baltimore, where the games were played, was terrible - - - bad patches of grass, some bald spots, etc. Now, keep in mind, this is during the World Series!

Today's fields are so neaty kept that they make some professional golf courses look like my backyard.

The more I thought about this, meaning the improvement in playing surfaces over the last 30 years, the more I thought about what the fields most have looked like 30 years before 1971.

What were they like in 1941? How about 1911? Very doubtful that they were better - - more than likely they were worse.

So, how does this (relative field condition) impact play, in terms of a comparison of, say, 1930 and 2002?

I would think that bad fields would mean more hits back then and more great plays robbing hits today, no?

sweaver · 11-04-2002, 08:23 AM

More errors, too. Scorers were not always so forgiving, and those bad hops could become errors.

rcartman28 · 11-04-2002, 09:31 AM

Wouldn't the fact the Baltimore Colts also played on that field have something to do with the condition of the surface at Memorial Stadium? Also, didn't Weaver have the infield grass cut very short there because that would make grounders travel faster thru the infield and having Belanger and Robinson give the Orioles an advantage at getting to those balls.....

sweaver · 11-04-2002, 11:14 AM

Remember too, this is why turf gained in popularity so quickly around this time.

pwdennis · 11-04-2002, 12:58 PM

The improved surfaces have been a big reason for the improvement in fielding stats - Ozzie Smith never played on surfaces as ratty as those faced by Mark Belanger & Luis Aparicio.

The improvement manifests itself in two ways - truer bounces on ground balls and better footing for getting off throws

Similarly Mike Schmidt played on better surfaces than Brooks Robinson or Clete Boyer typically faced.

This is not to say that all of the MLB infields of the 50s & 60s were rock gardens, some such as KC were very good, but quite a few were, to say the least, challenging.

If Schmidt and Smith, great fielders both, had played on those surfaces, and had better success than Brooksie, Clete and Little Luis, I would accept all the superlatives tossed their way

Better living through technology !

Gosfgiants · 11-04-2002, 01:07 PM

Apparently Dodger Stadium in the 60's and 70's had one of the worst infields in the league. Walter O'Mally had them use crushed red brick because of the look it gave it. It was awful to play on. Duane Kupier said he hated having to play there. He said often times he would not take infield there because of the brick.

11-03-2002, 09:59 PM	#1
Max Power NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: May 2002 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 5,548	All Things In The Field Uneven? I watched a couple of innings of Games 6 and 7 of the 1971 W.S. on ESPN Classic today. Baseball sure has changed in 30 years - - uniform styles, player conditioning, fan attire and reactions, pitching patterns, umpiring, etc. But, one thing that really stood up was the condition of the field. The turf in Baltimore, where the games were played, was terrible - - - bad patches of grass, some bald spots, etc. Now, keep in mind, this is during the World Series! Today's fields are so neaty kept that they make some professional golf courses look like my backyard. The more I thought about this, meaning the improvement in playing surfaces over the last 30 years, the more I thought about what the fields most have looked like 30 years before 1971. What were they like in 1941? How about 1911? Very doubtful that they were better - - more than likely they were worse. So, how does this (relative field condition) impact play, in terms of a comparison of, say, 1930 and 2002? I would think that bad fields would mean more hits back then and more great plays robbing hits today, no? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator "They come and they go, Hobbs. They come and they go." That's why there's NetShrine.com

11-04-2002, 09:31 AM	#3
rcartman28 NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hudson, WI Posts: 1,408	Wouldn't the fact the Baltimore Colts also played on that field have something to do with the condition of the surface at Memorial Stadium? Also, didn't Weaver have the infield grass cut very short there because that would make grounders travel faster thru the infield and having Belanger and Robinson give the Orioles an advantage at getting to those balls..... __________________ I would have looked out for the water main. But that's just me..... Brett Favre

11-04-2002, 12:58 PM	#5
pwdennis NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winter Springs, FL Posts: 2,503	The improved surfaces have been a big reason for the improvement in fielding stats - Ozzie Smith never played on surfaces as ratty as those faced by Mark Belanger & Luis Aparicio. The improvement manifests itself in two ways - truer bounces on ground balls and better footing for getting off throws Similarly Mike Schmidt played on better surfaces than Brooks Robinson or Clete Boyer typically faced. This is not to say that all of the MLB infields of the 50s & 60s were rock gardens, some such as KC were very good, but quite a few were, to say the least, challenging. If Schmidt and Smith, great fielders both, had played on those surfaces, and had better success than Brooksie, Clete and Little Luis, I would accept all the superlatives tossed their way Better living through technology ! __________________ "I would submit that if the world survives for a million years, perhaps its finest hour may be that in the last half of the 20th century, when the power to blow up the world rested in the hands of a few men in two very unsophisticated and suspicious countries, we didn't do it, and one American, Richard Nixon, moved the cold war away from permanent confrontation toward victory. How could any wrong that he did compare with that?" - John Sears

11-04-2002, 01:07 PM	#6
Gosfgiants NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,136	Apparently Dodger Stadium in the 60's and 70's had one of the worst infields in the league. Walter O'Mally had them use crushed red brick because of the look it gave it. It was awful to play on. Duane Kupier said he hated having to play there. He said often times he would not take infield there because of the brick. __________________ It'll always be Pacbell Park Beat LA!!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

11-04-2002, 08:23 AM	#2
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	More errors, too. Scorers were not always so forgiving, and those bad hops could become errors.

11-04-2002, 11:14 AM	#4
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	Remember too, this is why turf gained in popularity so quickly around this time.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
25 Things I Hate About You--Gammons	sweaver	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	16	11-26-2002 01:03 PM
Wrigley Field, does it really help the hitter?	ChicagoDave	2002 Baseball History Archives	22	06-05-2002 10:05 AM
Crosley Field	sweaver	2002 Baseball History Archives	0	05-10-2002 07:52 PM
MLB: 100 Things at the Bases...	b-ball-lunachik	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	4	05-09-2002 03:25 PM
Top 10 things that will happen in the Rangers' clubhouse in 2002	Fleet N. Ema	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	5	02-05-2002 03:01 PM